First multicenter experience using the Silk Vista flow diverter in 60 consecutive intracranial aneurysms: technical aspects.
aneurysm
flow diverter
technology
Journal
Journal of neurointerventional surgery
ISSN: 1759-8486
Titre abrégé: J Neurointerv Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101517079
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2021
Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
11
02
2021
revised:
18
03
2021
accepted:
22
03
2021
pubmed:
10
4
2021
medline:
23
11
2021
entrez:
9
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to assess the technical success and procedural safety of the new Silk Vista device (SV) by evaluating the intraprocedural and periprocedural complication rate after its use in several institutions worldwide. The study involved a retrospective review of multicenter data regarding a consecutive series of patients with intracranial aneurysms, treated with the SV between September 2020 and January 2021. Clinical, intra/periprocedural and angiographic data, including approach, materials used, aneurysm size and location, device/s, technical details and initial angiographic aneurysm occlusion, were analyzed. 60 aneurysms were treated with SV in 57 procedures. 66 devices were used, 3 removed and 63 implanted. The devices opened instantaneously in 60 out of 66 (91%) cases and complete wall apposition was achieved in 58 out of 63 (92%) devices implanted. In 4 out of 66 (6%) devices a partial opening of the distal end occurred, and in 5 (8%) devices incomplete apposition was reported. There were 3 (5%) intraprocedural thromboembolic events managed successfully with no permanent neurological morbidity, and 4 (7%) postprocedural events. There was no mortality in this study. The initial occlusion rates in the 60 aneurysms were as follows: O'Kelly-Marotta (OKM) A in 34 (57%) cases, OKM B in 15 (25%) cases, OKM C in 6 (10%) cases, and OKM D in 5 (8%) cases. Our study demonstrated that the use of the new flow diverter Silk Vista for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms is feasible and technically safe.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to assess the technical success and procedural safety of the new Silk Vista device (SV) by evaluating the intraprocedural and periprocedural complication rate after its use in several institutions worldwide.
METHODS
METHODS
The study involved a retrospective review of multicenter data regarding a consecutive series of patients with intracranial aneurysms, treated with the SV between September 2020 and January 2021. Clinical, intra/periprocedural and angiographic data, including approach, materials used, aneurysm size and location, device/s, technical details and initial angiographic aneurysm occlusion, were analyzed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
60 aneurysms were treated with SV in 57 procedures. 66 devices were used, 3 removed and 63 implanted. The devices opened instantaneously in 60 out of 66 (91%) cases and complete wall apposition was achieved in 58 out of 63 (92%) devices implanted. In 4 out of 66 (6%) devices a partial opening of the distal end occurred, and in 5 (8%) devices incomplete apposition was reported. There were 3 (5%) intraprocedural thromboembolic events managed successfully with no permanent neurological morbidity, and 4 (7%) postprocedural events. There was no mortality in this study. The initial occlusion rates in the 60 aneurysms were as follows: O'Kelly-Marotta (OKM) A in 34 (57%) cases, OKM B in 15 (25%) cases, OKM C in 6 (10%) cases, and OKM D in 5 (8%) cases.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our study demonstrated that the use of the new flow diverter Silk Vista for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms is feasible and technically safe.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33832971
pii: neurintsurg-2021-017421
doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2021-017421
pmc: PMC8606442
doi:
Substances chimiques
Silk
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1145-1151Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: MMG is proctor and consultant for Balt, Medtronic and Stryker. PG is consultant for Phenox, Balt and Cerenovus. JGF is consultant for Medtronic and Balt. MSA is consultant for Medtronic and Balt. PN is consultant and proctor for Balt, Stryker and Penumbra. The rest of the co-authors have not declared any conflict of interesting regarding this manuscript.
Références
Interv Neuroradiol. 2017 Apr;23(2):129-136
pubmed: 27956518
J Neurointerv Surg. 2015 Mar;7(3):217-21
pubmed: 24553344
Neurosurgery. 2020 Jan 1;86(Suppl 1):S21-S34
pubmed: 31838536
World Neurosurg. 2019 Oct;130:e457-e462
pubmed: 31247348
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 Dec;11(12):1227-1234
pubmed: 31088939
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2019 Apr;40(4):687-693
pubmed: 30872418
Interv Neuroradiol. 2019 Oct;25(5):530-538
pubmed: 30931672
Neuroradiol J. 2020 Oct;33(5):377-385
pubmed: 32692304
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 Jul;11(7):723-727
pubmed: 30852525
Neurosurgery. 2020 Jan 1;86(Suppl 1):S106-S116
pubmed: 31838531
J Neuroradiol. 2021 Jun;48(4):293-298
pubmed: 32615206
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 Feb;11(2):184-189
pubmed: 30297539
Neuroradiology. 2019 Sep;61(9):1067-1072
pubmed: 31203413
Interv Neuroradiol. 2021 Feb;27(1):42-50
pubmed: 32640858
Cardiovasc Pathol. 2017 Sep - Oct;30:45-54
pubmed: 28759819
J Neurointerv Surg. 2020 Nov;12(11):1107-1112
pubmed: 32482834
Interv Neuroradiol. 2019 Aug;25(4):447-453
pubmed: 30922199
J Neurointerv Surg. 2017 Dec;9(12):e38
pubmed: 28280115
Interv Neurol. 2017 Mar;6(1-2):90-104
pubmed: 28611839
Clin Neuroradiol. 2021 Sep;31(3):681-689
pubmed: 33216156
J Neurointerv Surg. 2021 Jan;13(1):54-62
pubmed: 32978269
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015 Mar;36(3):542-6
pubmed: 25376806
Neurosurgery. 2013 Jul;73(1):113-20; discussion 120
pubmed: 23615106
Neuroradiol J. 2016 Feb;29(1):66-71
pubmed: 26838174
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 Jul;11(7):690-693
pubmed: 30514737
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 Feb;11(2):166-170
pubmed: 30194108